[
Ecocentric Blog ]

The Fracking Plot Thickens: Are Gas Leases on Thin Ice?

I recently wrote about the gas drilling lease issue through the lens of a personal anecdote.

The topic is increasingly in the spotlight as the land grab for gas leases – by drilling companies seeking to tap shale deposits via high-volume, hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling (fracking) – continues through New York State and the nation. The New York Times recently shed light on yet another important aspect of gas drilling leases, that U.S. Department of Agriculture rural housing loans are being routinely granted on properties with oil and gas leases using a so-called “categorical exclusion” from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), although such exclusions are only supposed to apply to properties without environmental risks.

Most people would agree that fracking comes with an assortment of environmental risks given that it’s a heavy industrial activity; in this case an activity that introduces hazardous substances into people’s backyards. What’s less clear is the regulatory and legal landscape. If you have trouble wrapping your brain around this issue, then you're not alone. Fracking is a complex subject with an endless number of subthemes and gas leases might just be one of the more complicated aspects of this knotty topic.

Elisabeth Radow, an attorney-at-law with a keen interest in environmental impacts on human health and the subject of hydraulic fracturing (and who wrote in depth about gas leases and mortgages in the Nov/Dec 2011 cover story for the New York State Bar Association Journal magazine), helps to explain the significance of the Times story:

The New York Times reported on Monday that environmental specialists at the US Department of Agriculture have recognized USDA mortgage loans made to property owners with oil and gas leases may violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) if an extensive review is not performed. NEPA is a federal statute enacted in 1969 which requires that all federal agencies' funding or permitting decisions be made with full consideration of the impact to the environment. According to the Times report, USDA mortgages have been routinely granted on properties with gas leases without NEPA review by using a so-called “categorical exclusion” which is supposed to pertain to properties without environmental risks. The Times also reported that recognition in USDA of the need for a higher level of review was anticipated to result in a notice issued in April by USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack clarifying existing rules. However, on the heels of the Times article, Secretary Vilsack stated he will issue an Administrative Notice reaffirming that rural loans are “categorically excluded” under NEPA.

High volume hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling introduces heavy industrial activity and hazardous substances into property owners' backyards across America where families raise their children and farmers raise cattle and grow crops. In the words of the gas industry (as disclosed in the SEC mandated Form 10-K), this is inherently risky activity, including well blow-outs, explosions, pipe failures, fires, uncontrollable flows of natural gas, oil, brine or well fluids and other environmental hazards and risks which can result in property damage, personal injury and loss of life.

You might be wondering, what does this risk mean for the taxpayer? Radow explains:

Taxpayers subsidize the low interest-rate USDA rural development loans. In addition, these loans are routinely sold into the $6.7 trillion secondary mortgage market; 90% or more of all home mortgages are. To protect the federal government, the lending bank, the mortgage-backed securities investor and the taxpayer, it is critical that people underwriting federally backed loans grasp the multi-step (oil or) natural gas extraction process and assess the risks associated with each step so they can determine if the mortgage collateral (i.e., the land, the house and the water supply) will retain its integrity and value throughout the 30 year loan. Otherwise, USDA (and the other NEPA governed federal agencies involved in mortgage loans) risk litigation.

A close look at the USDA underwriting guidelines reveals that use of a categorical exclusion will not exempt a property from requirements of other environmental laws, regulations or Executive orders. Each property is supposed to be individually reviewed and can lose its categorical exclusion status where “extraordinary circumstances” or “cumulative impacts” are involved; both criteria have relevance here.

Radow predicts we have not heard the end of this debate since the Obama administration appears to be supportive of natural gas extraction, considers America’s food supply a matter of national security and is resolute about preventing another mortgage crisis. “To illustrate the conundrum created by these three competing priorities,” Radow suggests that we need “a transparent map of all of America’s farms and family homes with mortgages, superimposed on a second map of the nation’s oil and gas shale plays. That visual would say it all; clearly illustrating just what’s at stake.”

But here’s where it gets really interesting, according to Radow:

USDA underwriting guidelines prohibit a loan on a residential property which produces income or has the potential to produce income, as is the case with a residential property with a gas lease. So, while NEPA’s relevance to all federal agencies involved in mortgage loans should be recognized and acted upon-to protect and preserve our food supply, property value and public health-for purposes of USDA residential mortgages, it may be moot.

Many thanks to Elisabeth Radow for her expert aid in unraveling this complex issue. As I wrote last week, in most cases, gas drilling companies shift to landowners the risk of negative environmental and health impacts associated with the fracking technique. With this new information, it would seem that an over-burdened government agency (one that is supposed to be ensuring the safety of our food supply) and taxpayers are shouldering the load.

I encourage you to continue following this unfolding issue and distribute this information to as many people as possible.

Why did oil and gas giant Apache Corporation celebrate their monumental frack job in one case and downplay it in another? In a word: water (and a lot of it). Check out our excellent infographic on hydraulic fracturing’s problematic thirst.

The debate raging around fracking is very familiar to Greg Swartz: Fracking offers a potential economic boost for landowners, but carries with it potential health and safety hazards and risk of severe environmental degradation.

Ecocentric’s Kyle Rabin is moderating a panel at the Brooklyn Food Conference today on the interrelated nature of food, water and energy systems, so we thought we’d share some facts with our readers who aren’t able to attend.

Here we discuss Fox’s recent arrest in an attempted Congressional hearing videotaping, earthquakes in Ohio, the role of social issue documentaries in the environmental movement and how many explosions to expect in the film’s sequel, Gasland Part II

Wenonah Hauter talks about the environment, politics and what keeps her up at night. Find out what led to her becoming one of the most prominent environmental advocates/activists and what she’s working on now.

At July’s Stop the Frack Attack in Washington, we met with Wenonah Hauter of Food & Water Watch to get her take on fracking and farming, whether natural gas is actually a bridge fuel and what will happen if Governor Andrew Cuomo approves hydrau

UPDATE: For many Indian farmers their fantastic ride with all-in guar production came to a jarring halt and carried with it financial ruin. This is just another stop in the uncertain world of fossil fuel extraction, one whose economic model is based

As a result of the industrialization and consolidation of agriculture, food production has become increasingly dependent on energy derived from fossil fuels. Food crops are also becoming fuels themselves.

Tags

Responses to "The Fracking Plot Thickens: Are Gas Leases on Thin Ice?"

Carol Chock

03.23.2012

Good article. NEPA is only one piece. The secondary market is still at risk financially, regardless of results of a potential NEPA review. Portfolios of the rural housing loan program and others are still at risk because leases violate the terms of the mortgage loans. All mortgage market agencies need to look at their financial risk, regardless of where they stand on the environment. Portfolios of USDA, FHA, VA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and many state mortgage loan programs contain properties that violate their own loan purchase guidelines. This places their investments at risk from potential environmental and industrial accidents and from market forces, including the possibility that investors will realize the tenuous nature of the industry. It is a problem that will need to be addressed. It affects landowners, banks, the secondary market and, ultimately, the public taxpayers.

Leave a Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on topic. You represent that comments submitted do not infringe upon anyone's rights including copyright, trademark, privacy or other personal or proprietary rights.

We need to make sure you're a human and not a spambot. Please answer the following question. What is 18 + 16 equal to?

By submitting a comment here you grant us a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/website in attribution.